Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Congressmen Linder (Ga) and Peterson (Mn) have introduced HB 2525, The Fair Tax, which will accomplish all of this when passed. The plan repeals all personal and corporate income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate and gift taxes. The plan also repeals all payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. This allows individuals to receive their paycheck without any federal deductions!
How then would we pay for government? Under HB 2525, a 23% tax inclusive rate imposed on the purchase of new goods and services would provide the same amount of revenue as this year's income and payroll taxes provided (as required by law).
Contrary to first impressions, prices will not rise under HB 2525. Here's why: Our current tax system causes all prices to be inflated by two things - the amount of the tax costs of the business that is selling the good or service AND by the amount of the tax costs of all businesses that had any part in producing the good or service! Did you know that for every $1.00 that you spend, about 30 cents goes to pay the aforementioned tax costs (federal tax and compliance costs) of the retailer? Since HB 2525 eliminates all income taxes on businesses, this "hidden" tax of 30 cents per dollar will no longer be a part of the price. Competition will then push prices down by about 30 cents per dollar, or 30%. Then, adding the retail sales tax, prices will stay about the same with one BIG difference: now you have your paycheck free of federal deductions to spend or save as you wish. You see, under HB 2525 tax costs do not accumulate at every step of production. Since business to business purchases are not taxed, goods will flow to the retailer with zero tax costs. Items are taxed only once, when they are sold the first time. Used items are not taxed.
You may hear an argument that HB 2525 unfairly treats poor or elderly persons on fixed incomes. That is certainly a legitimate concern. HB 2525 eliminates that concern by providing all families with a tax rebate (based on family size, NOT based on income) that is equal to the sales tax that they'll pay on essential goods and services. This way, citizens will not only have their paycheck free of federal deductions, they will also have a rebate check to ensure that they pay no tax on necessities. Also remember that since there is no income tax under HB 2525, Social Security, pensions, and retirement income from any source are not taxed.
Retailers who sell taxable items or services will collect the tax. These retailers will be paid 1/4 of one percent of tax remitted or $3000 per year, whichever is greater (and remember, with no income tax, $3000 is really $3000!) Since 45 states already have sales tax mechanisms in place, the collection of the tax will not be burdensome. Retailers are accustomed to collecting and remitting a sales tax; under HB 2525, they will be paid for doing so.
The plan treats everyone fairly. Every individual will pay the same rate. Every new product and service is taxed at the same rate. There are no loopholes and there are no exceptions. All individuals pay the tax on every applicable purchase. HB 2525 requires that the tax paid be shown on every receipt. All citizens will be reminded of the cost of government every time they buy a taxable good or service (instead of having taxes withheld which tends to minimize their impact on us). Individuals will be keenly aware of their tax burden. This will tend to reduce government spending and hence reduce government.
Last but certainly not least, HB 2525 eliminates the IRS, eliminates the entire income tax code, and destroys all existing income tax records. The plan also calls (via HJR 45) for the repal of the 16th amendment, which authorized the taxation of income as we now know it.
If you are just learning about HB 2525, the Fair Tax, or you are new to the concept of a national retail sales tax, you are sure to have many questions about this tax reform proposal. You may find many answers at www.fairtax.org. Our Republic needs tax reform. Find out about the options. Contact your representative with an opinion and make something happen.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
Would you mind reconvening your seminar on this thread for us?
You the man, Condorman! Some day you'll have to teach me a little html over a suds.... what say you?
bump
Oh my, here we go some more! Thanks to Condorman for making a bearable thread!
Would you mind enacting a slight change of venue by reposting your "Seminar on the Benefits of an NRST?"
I'm all for it. You live in the Peach State, too, don't you?
OK, now we have a place for more questions...Ask away! What do you like about the nrst? What don't you like? What questions to you have?....
Indeed! I'm a Dawg, not a steenkin' bee. I hang at lake Lanier and Sanford Stadium.....
And you?
Looks like suds may be out. I'm a Wreck, myself.
About that 30% reduction in prices: please. I think that the incentive to profit will be too strong, and some customers will be willing to take the hit as long as they have no income taxes.
However, I'm not saying the prices won't be reduced some, and scrapping income and property taxes will provide a better balance of power, finance-wise, between us and government. Why? If government gets too arrogant or immoral, those of us who can afford to can simply reduce or eliminate spending on big-ticket and other non-essential items, thus threatening both government income and the economy and therefore making it harder for the current crop of idiots to keep office.
Profit motives will always exist. But they will be tempered by market forces. The effects of both corporate income tax and the cost of complying with the code are estimated to be between 20%-40%. Personally I'm expecting the low end. But, when you take a 20% price reduction, and add to that a 30% pay increase effective immediately, the value of the dollar has still been increased.
A big BUMP to stir the pot with. Jess git'n the gitt'r warmed up abit. Sunday is the day of rest afterall :o)
...the value of the dollar has still been increased.
And that is only the begining! Shortly after H.B. 2525 becomes law every product produced in the good ole USA will, with all those taxes wrung out of their prices, be able to fairly compete on the world market for the first time in any of our lifetimes!
Consider what that aspect would mean to our children and grandchildren for a little while!
I'll take the price increases over the current tax code.As a small business family we consider the current system nothing short of a confusing mass of garbage.There are many new computer programs that have made it easier but nothing can protect you from the fact that the code is interpreted differently by each I.R.S agent.This then leaves you at their mercy and judgement which in itself would make me accept any price increase to regain my Liberty.To you Condorman I would request as many links as you have time for, to create a tidal wave in the direction of congress that lets them know where We The People stand.Bravo to you sir!
One more thing...as this thread progresses, you may get smacked around by a poster named LewisLynn. Just a warning.
Heheh... Looey and I have been 'round the mulberry bush a time or two. I can hold my own.
Would one of you fine gentlemen be so kind as to provide once more your storehouse of links? You library is far more complete than mine.
In the meantime, L.o.D, I would refer you to Fairtax.org for a quick intro. Additionally, you click on the names of myself, pigdog, Chief Negotiator, ancient_geezer, Principled, bigun, and taxman (as well a a few others who I have undoubtedly left out) following any of their posts here on FreeRepublic. Most of us have NRST threads bookmarked, if you want to check them out.
Questions or comments: keep 'em coming!
Here's a few jut to get ya started!
"Tiptoe Through The Tax code Tinkering Tango"
The "Price of Civilized Society" Surges to $10,298 Per Person in the U.S.
"Fair Tax" FReepers...Prepare For Cyber-War!!! (Thread #3)
"Fair Tax" FReepers...Prepare For Cyber-War!!! (Thread #2)
"Fair Tax" FReepers...Prepare For Cyber-War!!!
The Fair Tax: Do the Numbers Add Up? (Response)
23 Reasons to Support a 23% "Fair Tax"
Why the "Fair Tax" Can and Should be Passed Into Law
The FairTax -- Fair Taxation For All Americans
'Fair Tax' would give Americans control of priorities
Freeper Report on Phoenix Fair Tax Town Hall Meeting
Freeper Report on 8/24 Fair Tax Meeting in Atlanta
You Can Receive 100% Of Your Paycheck! Wanna Know How? (#2)
You Can Receive 100% Of Your Paycheck! Wanna Know How?
"National Small Business United" Endorses The Fair Tax Plan
Bill Before Congress that will Abolish the Abusive Income Tax and Gestapo IRS!
Here's a few FR links for yah as a starter
As LewisLynn would never say:
EHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! RIGHT AGAIN!
Yeah, lewislynn (formerly lousbolts, formerly lurkeylou, and still formerly lewislynn) will undoubtedly enter and post the same misinformation he always does. He's always refuted, but slams hugh posts of juxtaposed text to disrupt.
He's been exposed as quite the liar. I'll provide the links should you be interested in personally viewing its absurd lying attempts to deflect Americans from embracing anything but the marxist income tax.
BTW what questions do you have about the plan?
Roger that. Seminar hereby reconvened. (I gather you are requesting a repost of my last?)
Repost follows:
*********************************
Always Right You made the absurd statement that “Nothing will change under NRST.”
Well, let us start a list of changes that will occur under the NRST, and then, based on fact, perhaps we can draw a meaningful conclusion that “A lot of things will change under the NRST, and all of them will benefit all Americans.”
I’ll start with a few observations of my own, and intentionally leave room for others to jump in here and add to the list. I expect that it will become quite long.
Freedom. We are slaves. Let’s face it, Americans do not have first dibs on their own money! When government (local, state and federal) impose income taxes on the citizenry (and take their cut before the paycheck is even cashed or deposited), the government is in effect saying “We will decide how much of your own money you can keep.” The NRST will allow all Americans to decide how much taxes they will pay based on what they consume, not how hard or how smart they work, save and invest. How much is your freedom worth? Under the NRST you will be able to work, save and invest without government interference in your economic life. That, my friends, is economic freedom. And, as you all know, economic freedom contributes to the growth of other freedoms. We will never be a truly free people so long as we have an income tax and the IRS.
Economic Growth. The NRST will fuel spectacular economic growth, without inflation. When Americans are encouraged to work, save and invest, and are not penalized for doing so, but are in fact rewarded, by all accounts the rate of GDP growth will double, and the (currently very anemic) rate of personal savings will triple. That spells Economic Growth. In the NRST environment, Americans will have more disposable income, and will both spend more and save more. Savings are the seed corn of economic growth, and increased consumption will fuel more business investment. In the NRST environment, savings and consumption are good for the economy, and neither is penalized by an obscene tax code. Not to mention all the businesses and jobs that will come back to America when we quit double and triple taxing businesses and the products they produce for both domestic and world consumption. Think Economic Growth.
Equality of treatment under the law. A basic founding principle of the United States of America is that we each are afforded equality of treatment under the law. It is the cornerstone of our society, and for years has been grossly violated in many respects. Here, we are concerned only with taxes. The income tax levied in 1913 as a result of passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. And set the stage for further outrages. The very concept of a “Progressive Income Tax” should outrage us all. Tell me, if you will, what is “equal” about dividing us into classes for the purpose of taxation? Punish those who work, save and invest by imposing even higher tax rates on higher incomes? Use class warfare and jealousy to formulate tax policy? Is this America? Targeted tax cuts? Did you get yours? My friends, the NRST, by taxing us all at the same rate on our consumption, will rekindle what should be a very bright American flame – the torch of equality of treatment under the law. I submit to you that tax policy should, nay, MUST be formulated ONLY to raise funds for the legitimate purposes of government, not to pick winners and losers; not for the purposes of “social engineering;” and most assuredly not for the purpose of inciting and exacerbating class warfare as the current code does. Tax policy should and must be neutral in these respects, and the NRST is decidedly neutral.
Increased purchasing power for all Americans, irregardless of their current income level. The bottom line economic factor arguing in favor of the NRST is that we all will have an immediate and profound increase in our purchasing power. Our ability to provide for our family and enjoy a lifestyle commensurate with our contribution to society in the form of useful work will be increased by exactly the amount of money now withheld from our wages plus the Family Consumption Allowance. That is right: Every American will enjoy an increase in disposable income when the income tax is replaced with the National Retail Sales Tax. As has been demonstrated many times on these threads, prices will not go up under the NRST. Depending upon your current tax bracket, your disposable income will increase from 15% to 40%. What will you do with it? I know what I’m gonna do with my “National Retail Sales Tax dividend!”
OK, I have said quite enough. Knowing full well that I have convened a seminar, it is time for me to let others have a say.
So, what say you? I know I have left out many benefits of the NRST. Things will change dramatically for the better, and I know that there are those of you out there just itching to jump in here and add to the discussion. The ball is in your court.
We can never be a truly free people so long as we have an income tax and an IRS.
Scrap the Code!
Scrap the IRS!
Abolish the VLWC!
172 Posted on 02/20/2000 10:56:08 PST by Taxman (fdavis@salestax.org)
Well, in that case, the 1st round is on me (yeah, the bees stung the dawg last fall). If roundball counts, we're even though! Anyway, if you're near Atlanta, come Wed 3/22 to an AFT event at UGA. I'll be there, another AFT guy, and several college republicans and Athens-Clarke repubs.
The invitation goes to anyone out there...lemme know if you want directions-
Glad you're on board, Liberty or death! As a small business owner, you're one of a group that stands to benefit the most from HB 2525.
I hope you'll contact your congress critter with your position! Demand that he/she take a position and sign on the bill - or lose his job!
Who is your critter anyway?
The seminar is in session. Principled, Condorman, CHIEF, pigdog, Bigun, Ancient_Geezer, Huck, et al, you have the floor Gentlemen. Regrettably, I must log off for a while.
I volunteered to help eat pizza & drink cold adult beverages and help a buncha nice folks fold 'n stuff 3,000 envelopes for a couple of Dr. Keyes' events here in Northern Virginia next week.
But, I'll be back. Y'all be good, now. Y'hear?
We can never be a truly free people so long as we have an income tax and an IRS.
Scrap the Code!
Scrap the IRS!
Abolish the VLWC!
Just one about the price dropping as much as Condorman originally claimed, but he already answered that one. Nonetheless, revoking and replacing the income tax does provide a better balance of power between us and government. No more will inflated heads say: "we can't lower their taxes, they can't be trusted to spend it right." And if they do, down goes their income!!! Hee-hee!
By the way, some people cannot be trusted with even their money, IMO, but on the other hand, the government recruits from the human race, so who says we can trust them completely, either?
'Since HB 2525 eliminates all income taxes on businesses, this "hidden" tax of 30 cents per dollar will no longer be a part of the price. Competition will then push prices down by about 30 cents per dollar, or 30%. Then, adding the retail sales tax, prices will stay about the same with one BIG difference: now you have your paycheck free of federal deductions to spend or save as you wish.
Another Three Card Monte Game from the NRST folks!
The arguement sounds very convincing until you figure out where all this 'extra' money is coming from they just created out of thin air. Have they really created more money? No, they just added the same money to two different places. You see the taxes they cut can not go into BOTH keeping your wages high and reducing the prices. If producers and retailers continue to pay you the same salary (with or without taxes), they CAN NOT simultaneously decrease prices. They can only decrease prices if you take a pay cut. It's the typical double counting scam they use on every thread. If they want to debate the real merits of their tax scheme, fine. I am sick of the lies though. I am weary of any plan that can't stand on the truth.
Dig it!!
Which is exactly why I'm askin'
" who are these lyin' whore bastard D.C.
(district of criminals)lobby shills takin'up our bandwidth anyway?"
What the hell are you talking about?
But actually liberty or death there will be price decreases, not increases. As the hidden taxes and compliance costs get wrung out of things prices will decline so that even when the NRST taxes are added back prices will remain about where they are now or drop a bit.
A good example is interest rates. With the NRST, interest rates will decling almost immediately (if not before in anticipation of the bill passing) toward the level of tax-free rates presently. After all, that's what makes taxable interest rates higher - income taxes. With the large part that interest rates play in the prices of everything (home and auto sales to mention only a few) this will have a very large and very rapid effect of decreasing prices of things all by itself. There are many other factors that will work to reduce prices, too.
And you're absolutely right about different people in the IRS making different interpretations - it's enough to drive you nuts; there's no logic to it. The current system is broken and rotten to the core. It must go.
The FAQ's on This site are a good starting point. Keep your eyes open, there are many others such as:
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Speedy , mysteriously so.......
"You see the taxes they cut can not go into BOTH keeping your wages high and reducing the prices. If producers and retailers continue to pay you the same salary (with or without taxes), they CAN NOT simultaneously decrease prices. They can only decrease prices if you take a pay cut."
You are obviously unaware of the cascading effect our current income tax system has on the price of every good and service.
Businesses do not pay taxes, they collect taxes in the form of higher prices, lower wages or less return on investments of the stockholders. All goods and services already contain the embedded costs of the current tax system in their prices. When these embedded taxes are removed, prices will come down. Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, has projected a producer price reduction of 20 to 30 percent in just the first year after the adoption of the FairTax. In addition, the FairTax will lower compliance costs by more than 90% and the removal of these costs will force prices down even lower.
If you want to correct Dr. Jorgenson...have at it!
Bryan Riley of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation wrote a Policy Paper entitled:
"The Less You See, The More You Pay: The Burden of Hidden Taxes".
The paper shows that on average, an American taxpayer pays $2,413 per year in hidden taxes. These hidden taxes, amounting to $639 BILLION annually are federal, state and local levies buried in with the prices of goods and services. These are a few exemples: 35 cents for a $1.14 loaf of bread, 18 cents on a 50 cent can of soda, 72% on a 750-ml bottle of liquor, 43% on a six-pack of beer and $63.60 on a $159 plane ticket.
Bryan Riley is quoted as having said: "Americans have no idea how high their tax burden is. If they did, there might well be a second American Revolution."
Hi one and all:
As a newbie, I posted two msgs to Thread 1 before discovering Thread 2,
Here's the website: http://www.salestax.org/
You're cordially invited to do these three things...
1) Go visit the Alliance website
2) Join the Alliance (Form is on the site)
3) Write your Senators and Congressperson
... do your part to MAKE IT HAPPEN! You'll be proud you did!
Onward & Upward!
so I invite ya'll to slip
back to Thread 1 and look 'em over. They're quick
reads. Now, to the subject at hand:
The National Retail Sales Tax Alliance!
asking them to support the NRST for Tax Reform.
Cliff
We know the poster you mention like the hair on the back of our hand - and he's about as beneficial, too. He is an unremitting liar who has the absolute record for dishonesty on these TRT's (Tax Reform Threads). He has NEVER posted a single reply on these threads that did not contain one or more gross falsehoods. He has been repeatedly corrected, never acknowledges or admits his errors and continues to post the same lies repeatedly.
In addition, he as a terrible "little problem" with both arithmetic and comprehension of the mother tongue. We're not too worried about getting "smacked around" by lewislynn (formerly known as lousbolts, formerly known as lurkeylou and originally known as lewislynn). It is quite the opposite ... we smack him around with the truth. He believes in the status quo but has never been able to answer the question "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Haven't you figured it out yet? It's a VRWC!
I just luv it when you talk dirty about the income tax!
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Bold off???
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Back to normal?
One more thing...as this thread progresses, you may get smacked around by a poster named LewisLynn. Just a warning. What provoked that you coward? You can have every opportunity to respond to my posts and this is my first response to this thread....
Is it a habit of yours to talk behind other peoples back...does that make you feel somehow brave...is it uplifting to a weak minded person to do such things?
I don't "smack" people around unless or untill they deserve it, (and you just made yourself eligible) unless in your narrow little mind providing facts and truth is tantamount to getting smacked around.
Now other posters can wonder what kind of un-provoked lies you tell about them behind their backs....in other words you moron, you can no longer be trusted.
--------------------------
Heheh... Looey and I have been 'round the mulberry bush a time or two. I can hold my own. But you still can't do decimals (with out your calculator).
17 Posted on 02/20/2000 12:39:53 PST by Condorman
-----------------------------
He's been exposed as quite the liar. I'll provide the links should you be interested in personally viewing its absurd lying attempts to deflect Americans from embracing anything but the marxist income tax.
Well, we not only have government hacks, frauds and liars shilling for the phoney Hr2525 we also have some cowards on these threads doing some un-provoked assaults, I must be doing something right...like telling the truth that hits a little too close to home...
SO go ahead cowards, don't just talk about it, DO IT!.... post the links.
By the way condoman, are you still watching TV with your stop watch and calculator to determine if you're getting screwed out of precious minutes from "your favorite program"?...Oh yeah! I did read those nice things you said about me, but untill you use profanity you'll never hold a candle to the name calling I get from some of your idols....
LIke I always say, just keep it up and you'll eventually expose yourselves for what you really are.
'You are obviously unaware of the cascading effect our current income tax system has on the price of every good and service.'
We are talking about all the taxes that go into the price of goods and services. This hocus pocus 'cascading effect' BS is just more non-sense that covers up the basic fact. The feds are still extracting $1.8 Trillion out of our economy for their use. It amazes me that you really think it matters how they steal it.
Good work on the unclosed {/font size}, deadeye!!p Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
"We are talking about all the taxes that go into the price of goods and services. This hocus pocus 'cascading effect' BS is just more non-sense that covers up the basic fact. The feds are still extracting $1.8 Trillion out of our economy for their use. It amazes me that you really think it matters how they steal it."
No we're not. We're talking about the hidden taxes this bill will remove from all goods and services. If you ask me if I think that we are taxed too much the answer is of course! You're next question should be, "How can we reduce the size of gvmnt?"
There ain't no magic wand......no more big gvmnt.
Here's proof that we just can't get there (SMALLER GOVERNMENT) from here (income tax system):
Even with a GOP Congress with a firm grasp of the nation's purse-strings...taxes and spending have increased.
The "Price of Civilized Society" Surges to $10,298 Per Person in the U.S.
"Americans will spend more money per capita in 1999 on taxes ($10,298) than on food ($2,693), clothing ($1,404), and shelter ($5,833) combined," according to Patrick Fleenor, senior economist at the Tax Foundation and author of the new report titled "The Price of Civilized Society."
This chart looks promising for
your children's financial future, doesn't it?
Until you and I get FED UP with the manner in which government can confiscate YOUR money,
within another 18 years expect your children and grandchildren to spend over $20,000 per year to
"feed-the-beast"!
The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 115,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.
The FairTax will effectively shut-down the thousands of lobbyists in DC whose only reason for existence is to garner favor for their clients through the manipulation of the tax code. Just let'em try to raise the NRST rate! It would be political suicide, because it would affect EVERY VOTER!
SCRAP-THE-DAM-CODE...ABOLISH-THE-GESTAPO-IRS!!!
lewislynn (formerly known as lousbolts, formerly known as lurkeylou and originally known as lewislynn) - or looey, as he is more commonly called, is just mad because his latest arithmetic idiocy was riddled full of holes. He hates it when that happens (which has been every time he has posted).
Go get 'em looey, post more of you trashy lies. Before you do, though, just tell us "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
The only "basic fact" is that the cascading effect of the VAT-like income tax raises the prices of everything all of us by - even you - by from 20 to 40%, and whether you admit it or not (and you never have), these costs are, indeed a hidden tax on all of us and they are no accident. It matters one hell of a lot how the government gets its taxes since these sorts of taxes are over and above their receipts (which receipts are what show on your 1040) - this all just represents a waste of money caused by the existing method of taxation. It is a penalty for, and a consequence of, government inefficiency.
Before a single thing arrives at your doorstep to nail onto one of the homes you're building, it has these additional taxes and compliance costs added each time that particular thing is passed from business to business on its way to your hands. Non-productive costs are added at each step - a cascading that has a multiplier effect upon these hidden taxes by the time they get to you (or your customer since you add a bit yourself in the way of hidden taxes to pass on to your end-user buyer).
You refuse to admit that this is true and yet you also refuse to tell us "What's so fair about a tax on income?" Why might that be??
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
It's doing the same old stuff. I guess if any poster is actually curious about its "assertions", they'll ask.
If they want to debate the real merits of their tax scheme, fine. I am sick of the lies though.
According to tax foundation, you know the folks who caculate the "Tax Liberation Day" for each year, the average individual tax payer pays a total of 38.64% of taxes [Average State/Local and Total Tax Rates by State, 1999 ] directly from their own incomes to the government. That effective tax rate of 38.64% does not include corporate taxes, the cost of tax compliance of corporations, nor the cost of tax compliance of individuals.
That, 38.64% is comprised 11.33% local & state taxes plus 27.31% of income. That includes 15.3% payroll taxes, Individual income taxes, and other taxes attributable to the individual.
In Individual Federal Taxes alone we pay 27.31% of Individual Gross income out to the Feds. According the the Taxpayer's foundation.
Looking at average again we subtract the 6.75% of wages attributable to The Corporate "contribution" to SS/Medicare leaving 20.56% of Gross paid from the income of the citizen to the government.
That means our net take home pay "discretionary income" = 79.44% of Gross income.
Furthermore in terms of takehome pay, that we actually get to spend, the average person would see 20.56/79.44 = 25.88% raise in takehome pay over the income tax on enactment of the NRST.
According to literature from the Forbes' Campaign on the subject, Individual Americans bear an burden of $235 billion in the costs associated with record keeping, tax accountants & tax return aids above and beyond the immediate effect of paying Federal taxes alone. More than 90% those costs would disappear as regards meeting the burden of an NRST.
"The Forbes plan will end the IRS as we know it and virtually eliminates the $235 billion a year that Americans spend complying with the federal tax code."
October 25, 1999; Manchester Union Leader: Forbes' Forte: Economic package is full of good ideasCosts of compliance for business remain unchanged under a flat tax or any Corporate income tax as essentially the same record keeping and determination of business expenses for tax purposes would be required to determined Corporate taxable income and payroll taxes.
So from our discretionary income we would have to subtract a substantial portion of the $230billion from the family's takehome pay not including the time individuals address towards complying with the federal requirement of the income tax raising. the Federal tax burden on the American individual to well over 25.88% of our current true income usable for supporting ourselves and families.
So where sir is the double Counting you indicate exists, when Corporate taxes consisting of the 6.75% SS/Medicare + Corporate Income Tax + a Cost of Compliance to Corporations and business of approximately $200billion as the low estimate, (from many sources both flat tax proponents and NRST proponents). Taking those factors into to account that is why Dan Mastromarko and Dr. Jorgenson and many others estimate a fall in price of at least 20% on enactment of the NRST and most expect more due to expectations of lower interest rates, and capital improvements increasing productivity (due more money in savings and investments) .
Where Sir are the lies!! Where is the double counting.
'That effective tax rate of 38.64% does not include corporate taxes, the cost of tax compliance of corporations, nor the cost of tax compliance of individuals.'
That number includes ALL taxes, including corporate taxes.
You may be "weary of any plan that can't stand on the truth", Always Right, but if so it should be the income tax you are ranting against since indeed it cannot stand on the truth.
You, my friend, are in serious need of some lessons in economics. There is no conflict with keeping the wage structure the same (paying the same wage) and decreasing costs. As has been pointed out to you in great detail repeatedly (but which you refuse to realize), the costs being wrung out of the system are exactly the non-productive ones that add nothing to enhance the value or worth of anything produced ... they are the hidden taxes and compliance costs and they amount to from 20 to 40% of the prices we all pay. These add NOTHING meaningful or productive to prices except to increase them.
The dollar value of your wages will not only remain the same, but you will have more takehome money in your pocket to the tune of 30% or more than at present. In addition, real wages will raise even if dollar wages remain the same since you will now have much greater purchasing power with the "same" wage rate as before.
You are one of those benighted persons who can only see only the single economic effect that is immediately before him when in fact, that isn't the way economics works at all. There are many different effects that spread our much as ripples in a pond and what increases economic activity helps all of us. The existing tax system has acted (and is acting) like a huge anchor on the economic engine of this country; a horrid drag on the engine of capitalism when it should be working to unleash the sort of economic benefit that the NRST can and will bring about.
You are being so shortsighted it is painful to read your posts. "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
'Where Sir are the lies!! Where is the double counting.'
To name one, first you charge the FULL 15.3% SS tax to the individual. Then you add it again as 6.75% SS to corporate taxes.
Burble, burble number eleven.
norraad's died and gone to heaven
which is surely strange and mighty funny
since he protests taxes with all his money.
Tell us, my fine feathered friend (i.e., a turkey) ... "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Burble, burble number twelve
into which I will not delve
unless the poster, so obscene,
agrees to be quiet and nevermore seen.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
One of your steps did subtract out the 6.75%. But I still don't understand why you include state taxes in your numbers since you are not eliminating them. I'll have to studt this a bit.
Hope you don't try to "smack" me around, looey ... I do so hate those big, sloppy kisses of yours.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Note that the curve starts climbing dramatically with the election of FDR. Democrats alone are reponsible for the growth of government and for the explosion of the National Debt.
Actually, it is not fair to call it the National Debt; it should be called the Democratic Party's Bill.
Amen!
'Where Sir are the lies!! Where is the double counting.'
If you go to the TAXFOUNDATION'S website:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prstatelocal99table.html
You will see that Corporate Taxes are most definitely factored into their per capita tax numbers. So adding in the any number for corp tax is double counting.
The feds are still extracting $1.8 Trillion out of our economy for their use. It amazes me that you really think it matters how they steal it.
The H*ll it doesn't matter!!
It matters to me that, under this evil income tax system you love so much, only honest folks who earn legetimate incomes get stuck with all the bills!
It matters to me that those who earn their incomes from illigetimate sources but still participate at every level don't pay a d*amned thing under the income tax but WOULD do under the NRST!
Doesn't matted my A$$!! SEEEESH! How dumb can some folks be?
Before we embark on a discussion of the laws of economics, we should NEVER forget the omniscience of the Law of Unintended Consequences. ALL of these discussions about the net effect of a National Retail Sales Tax are academic without incorpoating into the discussion the necessary result of a flourishing Black Market driven by Organized Crime. This perhaps indicates one of the few benefits of a Value Added Tax (VAT). (I don't know much about these things. The Black Market problem was rather patiently explained to me by a Phillipine National.)
So perhaps you hyper-ciphers out there can comment?
Personally, I would feel a whole lot more comforatble about NRST if I didn't smell the impending "need" for implanted chips to verify a legitimate purchase and prevent cheating.
What say you ladies and gentelmen?
That number includes ALL taxes, including corporate taxes.
The effective tax rate on the average individual's income is virtually the same as the effective taxrate on Corporate revenues. There is little if any distortion in that number of 21% taken as it is as a %Rate paid by Taxpayers on their income. The 60 million Taxpayers who pay 96% of the Individual income taxes according to the IRS. And 84% of the SS/Medicare taxes.
When you fail to see the burden of nearly 21% of Gross income on the average taxpayers back (Individual Income Tax + 6.75% SS/Medicare) not even counting his tax compliance costs and another 20% (tax + compliance) burden on product prices you simply don't want to see the cumulative effects for whatever purpose.
I will stand by the numbers I have quoted because they are very real to those who pay those taxes and are being saddled with virtually the full bill of Government largess. That is who I try to reach and that is who these numbers are meaningful.
Wanted you guys to know I emailed my congressman's office today. Nothing spectacular, just an inquiry regarding HR2525. But I thought you might want to know. I am following all these threads very closely, and IMHO, you guys have shredded every comer so far. Keep it up...it is making me believe in the plan more and more...and other too I am sure. Why would anybody want to keep the tax code as it is?????
But I still don't understand why you include state taxes in your numbers since you are not eliminating them
I quote my self in #47:
That, 38.64% is comprised 11.33% local & state taxes plus 27.31% of income[Federal tax]. That includes 15.3% payroll taxes, Individual income taxes, and other taxes attributable to the individual.
(I'm sorry to have confused you as I meant to state 27.31% Federal taxes, which should have been clear from the following sentence)
In Individual Federal Taxes alone we pay 27.31% of Individual Gross income out to the Feds. According the the Taxpayer's foundation.
'Where Sir are the lies!! Where is the double counting.'
To name one, first you charge the FULL 15.3% SS tax to the individual. Then you add it again as 6.75% SS to corporate taxes.
Again I quote my self in #47:
"Looking at average again we subtract the 6.75% of wages attributable to The Corporate "contribution" to SS/Medicare leaving 20.56% of Gross paid from the income of the citizen to the government[Federal]."
Carry_Okie...neat name. Two Christmasses ago a Korean friend of mine took me and Mrs. Chief to a Korean Carryokie (sp?)bar. After waaaay too much to drink, I was talked into singing a Beatles song...of which I totally destroyed. Now how many people do you know that has sung at a Korean Carryokie bar?
Blackmarket and the FairTax:
I doubt people will buy milk from the illegal milk dealer that wears dark sunglasses on the corner, or meet in an abandoned warehouse at midnight to buy porterhouse steaks. No tax plan will eliminate crooks, but for the first time, crooks, prostitutes, drug dealers, illegal aliens, non-filers etc. that have evaded paying any income tax will be FORCED into becoming taxpayers every time they purchase bread, bananas, bicycles, Buicks, BMWs and BIG BROWN BOATS!
Compliance is a concern with any tax system. Under the current income tax system, the IRS itself estimate that it loses $200-300 billion a year to the underground economy. It is hard to imagine it could be worse under the NRST.
The NRST will not suffer from the compliance problems for the following reasons:
Hope you don't try to "smack" me around, looey ... I do so hate those big, sloppy kisses of yours.
I had a feeling you were falling in love with me, the way you talk dirty to me and all.
or looey, as he is more commonly called, is just mad because his latest arithmetic idiocy was riddled full of holes. He hates it when that happens (which has been every time he has posted).
As usual, you use name games or name calling to cover up the fact that you can't prove your assertions either.
It's doing the same old stuff. I guess if any poster is actually curious about its "assertions", they'll ask.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!Oh you're soooo clever. WHO??? What "stuff"???? ....I'm curious, so I'm asking about "it's assertions"....post'em so we can all be as informed as you.
A BTTT for a well-informed nrst educator!
All duly noted.
There already is, however, a large and well organized black barket in cars and boats based upon theft, especially here California. There is a fix for that, but there's that implanted-chip-GPS-tracking thing again that makes my stomach turn.
What with the impending market in home delivery by consolidating Internet orders, there is even more opportunity to do the dirty deal than ever unless of course there is some form of "monitoring". Just too yucky for me there.
It is just a tad scary to me to make such a wholesale change when one has only to examine the size of the Native American "import/export business" in cigarettes.
So! Although I would like nothing more than to see a total 35% hit on a new SUV the whole thing just scares the Beelzebubbalous out of me to do it wholesale in a big hurry.(Don't excuse the pun, please, I need the correction. Tax me more, tax me more...)
Anyway, I have never been to a Kareoke Bar. I don't can yodel like Roy Rogers!
Urrrp!
YUK!!!
This is the first reply you have made on FR that has not had overt, substantive lies. This one only has your own misinterpretation of what has been said ... but come to think of it, lurkey, that's the definition of a lie, too. Your 100% record is still intact.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
You're really asking for truoble (and after I've been so nice to you, too). I refrained from letting you have it a thread or so ago when you were posting your idiotic and incorrect arithmetic. If you want it torn apart, post it again. I can demonstrably prove my asertions by backing them up. You can't. You merely lie.
And why are you afraid to tell us "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
So! Although I would like nothing more than to see a total 35% hit on a new SUV the whole thing just scares the Beelzebubbalous out of me to do it wholesale in a big hurry.(Don't excuse the pun, please, I need the correction. Tax me more, tax me more...)
What's scarey is the fact that is what is being extracted from you anyway whether it is visible to you directly or not. The overt tax bill on people's back is 'That effective tax rate of 38.64% ' According to the Taxpayer Foundation, and that's not taking compliances cost into account.
Your 35% is understating the real damage that is being pressed on us right now on our total income and not on just the sales tax rate on something we buy under an NRST + state sales tax.
That should have everyone's blood in a boil.
All you seem to be saying that there are crooks right now ... I'd agree with that and there always will be some. That proves nothing. Perhaps you should read this thread if you're concerned about compliance.
Most businesses will honestly collect and forward the sales tax (and they are paid for doing so). Taxation of sales on the Internet would be handled under the NRST just as any other sale - as a destination principle tax.
Lest you think that the non-compliance with income tax is non-existent, the IRS believes that non-compliance by taxpayers is fully 22 to 23% of all the money they collect. We would indeed have to suddenly and collectively become a nation of lawbreakers to equal that. I believe your fears are greatly misplaced. Most people, at present, do their best to try to pay their taxes honestly. I doubt that will change with the NRST.
And tell us, "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I do not believe that I inferred that an income tax was fair, constitutional, intelligent, equitable, or did anything to preserve and grow capital. I believe I said that I would prefer to have a NRST and that it is the transition and management of cash and compliance that concerns me. I do not prefer wholesale conversion, but a series of trials before we hang our economy on such a massive transition. So what I would like to know is not what the numbers would be (because we are already paying it one way or another, as you have all so aptly reiterated) but instead, what administrative tests and steps you suggest to make it happen without adverse incident.
As a suggestion, I believe that here is where the several states could teach us a lot by experimental array. I would be overjoyed to dump the $5,000 in property taxes I pay here in the PRC to the rotten public schools I refuse to use.
What transitional steps do you suggest: a single-year, complete changeover? There are effective black markets the world over, including here, so please do not underestimate the hazards, especially in our increasingly bipolar economy. I would not wish upon those who are trying to dig their children out of such a moral pit as our cities to remand them from yet an additional temptation to crime.
I raise the concern that, when the stakes rise higher, the problem WILL get much bigger and the mechanics will diversify. Many crooks are more intelligent, devious, and gratuitously rapacious, than honest citizens give them credit for. The dangerous ones do it for fun.
Finally, I am here to have a little fun and engage in some intelligent discussion, right or wrong. I enjoy learning with people who disagree politely even for the purpose of exploration through mature argument.
The instances you originally cited were of car and boat theft which is not a problem of non-compliance with the sales tax.
The home delivery of Internet orders can be handled without difficulty under the existing NRST structure as a destination-principle tax with the sales taxes distributed to the appropriate state under that NRST law.
Do you have any studies that show the size of the Native American import/export business in cigarettes. I can't imagine it even begins to approach the non-compliance figures I gave you from the IRS. If there is a substantial trade in that area, it exists now and would not go away under any form of taxation so I do not see that as an issue.
I am also puzzled by your mention of a 35% hit on new SUV's since the NRST marginal rate is 23% tax inclusive and, in fact, prices will drop so that you will probably pay no more for that SUV tax-included than you do right now (when you buy it with after-tax dollars; you need to "earn" much more that the SUV price to pay income taxes on that amount to net the SUV purchase price).
Certainly it is human nature to some degree to be concerned about any change from what one has known, but the sales tax system exists in 45 states right now and works well. Barring some more definitive information that you have offered so far, I do not think you have offered a convincing case. Please read the link I gave earlier that addresses some of your concerns, and also this link that addresses some others.
Attempting to make any changeover to a new tax system cannot be done piecemeal on a state at a time or trial basis particularly in view of the fact that most states already operate a sales tax. A trial or piecemeal effort merely plays into the hands of those who wish to retain the status quo and we would never see the NRST get into operation as law.
Property taxes, BTW, are not part of either NRST bill at present.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I doubt that Principled is dumb enough to post your lies for you. If you want to post them again, do it yourself.
While you're at it, why don't you tell us "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
A quick clarification: I didn't write the original article, I simply reposted it from the previous thread...
What transitional steps do you suggest: a single-year, complete changeover? There are effective black markets the world over, including here, so please do not underestimate the hazards, especially in our increasingly bipolar economy. I would not wish upon those who are trying to dig their children out of such a moral pit as our cities to remand them from yet an additional temptation to crime.
In reallity I do not believe there are any rational transistional steps that can be taken safely. The reason I say this, is due to the very apparent danger of creating a NRST in combination with an income tax. Such a scenario would, IMO, rapidly turning into a permanent fixture. The combination scenario leads directly to the same kind of VAT structure that currently plagues Canada and Europe with effective tax rates going through the roof. There are rumbles of that now floating through the political landscape.
One of the reasons I support the NRST under H.R.2525 is that it is a total replacement system with the direct and immediate effect of disallowing the existence of both an income tax and a National Retail Sales Tax.
The second and primary reason has to do with the control that is exerted over our lives through the lever of the income tax. On the basis of the fact that a sworn statement exists for each year detailing our financial lives, the government through the kind offices of the IRS can initiate audits, and expensive legal probes into to our lives for little more reason than annonymous tips. That leads directly into its abuse for a political weapon against dissident groups and political enemies, by whoever is in power.
When government look to aquire and exercise more power, as all do, they merely classify more people as criminals. Historically that is the function of enactments of law and growing bureaucracies.
One of the really sad issues as regards the Income tax is its deleterious effect on respect for law and virtual evaporation of protections under the 4th and 5th amendments. The present system encourages lawlessness and divisions among large segments of the population, rich v. poor are constantly aligned one against the other by political demagogues.
Tax protest movements abound through the country, praying on the gullible and those who rightfully feel excessively burdened by an unresponsive government. Such activity leads to even stronger expressions of rebelliousness as the law enforcement mechanisms of government crank up to meet the threat to its revenues causing an ever increase gulf between the people and a government the is nolonger of, by or in anyway for the people.
No tax system can be popular by any stretch of the imagination, expecially at the costly levels of government we currently are burdened with. An NRST merely make that cost visible and apparent to all, which adds a necessary element to the linkage of awarness and ultimately the accountablity of Congress and Presidents to the people.
That to me anyway, is worth the transitional pains that may be present in moving from the Karl Marx Social Engineering Tax (aka Income Tax) to the NRST.
The NRST tends to be a self limiting system of taxation which is very important to me. When the people seek to evade and avoid taxation at the levels of 20-30% of the population or I suspect more to one degree or another. That is just telling us that our government has become too burdensome, trying to do too much. It has become a danger too us instead of the protector of our inalieable rights of Life Liberty and Property(aka pursuit of happiness)
I leave you with a bit of wisdom passed on to us from Hamilton, who inspite of his taste for monarchy and centralized government seemed to have a pretty good handle on other factors.
To Quote Alexander, Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury said in Federalist Papers #21:
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.
When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.
This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.
Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country." (Emphasis added).
All:
Someone asked about help with HTML. Here's a website
that takes you all the way from beginner to expert.
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/basics.html
Cliff Cofer
........................................................
"I'm voting for the candidate who
backs the National Sales tax!"
........................................................
GoTo: http://www.geocities.com/~cmcofer/ <-NRST
What provoked that you coward? You can have every opportunity to respond to my posts and this is my first response to this thread....
Hi Looey. Back again, I see. It looks like your reputation preceeds you.
But you still can't do decimals (with out your calculator).
So you're going to cast the first stone? Fine with me. I'll give you an easy one.
You have 1 blue ball and 9 red balls. What percentage of your balls are blue?
A) 10%
B) .10%
C) 11.11% (using exclusive rates)
D) None of the above
For the casual reader, I posed this question to Lewis some time ago in response to some grevious errors he was making. He refused to answer it, thereby waiving his right to legitimately participate in a discussion of tax rates.
Well, we not only have government hacks, frauds and liars shilling for the phoney Hr2525 we also have some cowards on these threads doing some un-provoked assaults, I must be doing something right...like telling the truth that hits a little too close to home...
SO go ahead cowards, don't just talk about it, DO IT!.... post the links.
Pigdog, over to you...
By the way condoman, are you still watching TV with your stop watch and calculator to determine if you're getting screwed out of precious minutes from "your favorite program"?...Oh yeah! I did read those nice things you said about me, but untill you use profanity you'll never hold a candle to the name calling I get from some of your idols....
Sorry, idolatry is not one of my vices. However, by way of explanation for the casual observer, I recently posed the following analogy to our Dear Little Friend:
The terms "tax inclusive" and "tax exclusive" are word and number games. For example, I watch a half-hour (30 minute) program on television. Of that, 20 minutes is actual show, and 10 minutes are filled with commercial. Now, has the network added 50% worth of commercial, or is the entire program 33% commercial? Both answers are correct. Percentages are fun that way. It all depends on the reference point. Either way, the actual numbers represented by the percentages are identical.
The 23% (not .23%) NRST is calculated on tax inclusive rates, just like the income tax, just for comparison purposes.
He claims that the 23% FairTax rate is, in fact .2987%. What he fails to grasp is that a) the rate can be calculated in one of two ways, b) that the actual dollar amounts are identical, c) that .2987% is 100 times smaller than 29.87%, and that d) my television viewing habits are pretty incidental compared to the NRST debate.
It's an amusing thread, and well worth the read, if only to watch our D.L.F. write himself into a verbal Mobius strip.
How fortuitous, I just happen to have that link HERE.
PS: Big smoochies to you, Looey! Thanks for coming out!
The instances you originally cited were of car and boat theft which is not a problem of non-compliance with the sales tax.
True indeed. I was using it as an example of a capable and substantial black market. There will however be motive under higher RST rates to expand that market and distribution system considerably. Consider that many if not most vehicles stolen in California are either chopped into an illegal distribution system or end up in Mexico. Consider also the fraction of vehicles produced in our NAFTA trading "partners" and the likelihood that the temptation to use civic power to divert production into illegal channels will be great. Consider the current corporate tax evasion in transfer pricing schema as negation of your inference of the integrity of corporate citizenship.
The home delivery of Internet orders can be handled without difficulty under the existing NRST structure as a destination-principle tax with the sales taxes distributed to the appropriate state under that NRST law.
No doubt. But that it CAN be handled does not mean that it cannot also be avoided.
Do you have any studies that show the size of the Native American import/export business in cigarettes. I can't imagine it even begins to approach the non-compliance figures I gave you from the IRS. If there is a substantial trade in that area, it exists now and would not go away under any form of taxation so I do not see that as an issue.
I have no such "studies" nor would I bother. I was recently abused into wasting ten minutes of my time witnessing a "DateLine" or some such apalling drivel, detailing such a smuggling operation across the St. Lawrence Seaway involving an island belinging to Native Americans as a trans shipment point. I believe that it was a subsidiary of BAT that provided the product and managed the shipments to a transfer warehouse. When they were caught they were shut down, but as I recall the total revenue was but $1.2Bn per year.
I mentioned cigarette smugling only as an example of smuggling to avoid a sales tax, a classic black market mechanism as might arise in the presence of a NRST. The argument is demonstration of a transactional mechanic suggestive of a black market in other goods. When the NRST rate justifies the risk of expansion into new market sectors these same people will have the capital, distribution, civic "protection", and expertise to expand their operations.
You rightly offer consideration of scale. Try the market in illegal drugs, both of clandestine production and an illegal sale of prescription drugs. This dollar figure suggests a system capable of marketing, shipping, distributing a huge bulk of material at very high dollar volume.
I'll bet their collection efficiency is much better than the IRS!
Consider also the effect on law enforcement. The power and temptation to bribe law officers certainly has externalities beyond the mere act and fact of smuggling!
I am also puzzled by your mention of a 35% hit on new SUV's since the NRST marginal rate is 23% tax inclusive and, in fact, prices will drop so that you will probably pay no more for that SUV tax-included than you do right now (when you buy it with after-tax dollars; you need to "earn" much more that the SUV price to pay income taxes on that amount to net the SUV purchase price).
Touche on the percentage. I was picking a number out of the air because IMHO the actual percentage is immaterial to the discussion I was trying (and have so far completely failed)to initiate.
I was actually agreeing with you by indicating that I would much prefer to save and invest my capital and let others enamored of frivolous status symbols pay the taxes.
Certainly it is human nature to some degree to be concerned about any change from what one has known, but the sales tax system exists in 45 states right now and works well.
All the more reason to examine their experience in detail and try a numer of more elaborate experiments at higher marginal rates!
Barring some more definitive information that you have offered so far, I do not think you have offered a convincing case.
I was not trying convince you of anything other than to ask you to convince me that it was worth the risk to make such a wholesale change and suggest the best likely mechanisms with which to avoid a debacle.
So far, I am not encouraged.
Please read the link I gave earlier that addresses some of your concerns, and also this link that addresses some others.
Will do.
Attempting to make any changeover to a new tax system cannot be done piecemeal on a state at a time or trial basis particularly in view of the fact that most states already operate a sales tax. A trial or piecemeal effort merely plays into the hands of those who wish to retain the status quo and we would never see the NRST get into operation as law.
I get very suspicious of arguments like this. When I hear "cannot" I hope only to respect you more than to believe that you intend to stand by that assertion.
All this means to me is that the real problems are associated with incontinent fiscal behavior on the part of OUR administrative and elected offals and that you fear what they might do under such circumstances. Such a stance substantiates my concerns when coupled with their usual demonstrations of competence and integrity. Hence my desire for a set of trials. If they can't show me that it DOES work, why should I support such a massive change?
Property taxes, BTW, are not part of either NRST bill at present.
Obviously, because they are federal bills.
I was talking about a state demonstration here in California that would roll ad valorem property taxes into marginally higher RST rates as an example of a state-based, revenue neutral test. It an example of what you suggested "cannot" be done.
Thank you for your rejoinder.
Sorry, idolatry is not one of my vices.
Nothing like elevated discourse with which to trounce the laggardly into their well enamoured stasis. Fie upon them, Sir! I beseecheth thee, that thou might goeth hogge wilde!
Cool!
Many blessings upon you, kind sir, for your o'er gracious words. May long be your days and lovely be your women, as cheerfully through the meadows of life you frolick!
And coming soon, look for my newest book, Condorman's Guide to Elizabethian Insults (with a nod in the general direction of pigdog for conceptual inspiration).
Yore awl rite, Condorman!
Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because of that fishing tackle thing that you posted with LINKS TO NOWHERE on the "737 billion reasons to abolish the income tax" thread. Maybe its because of the way you call advocates of a sensible idea "shills." Maybe its because of your snotty attitude?
I guess I just had to warn them.
He's been exposed as quite the liar. I'll provide the links should you be interested in personally viewing its absurd lying attempts to deflect Americans from embracing anything but the marxist income tax.
Go ahead and provide the links. He just called me a coward, but I responded, so that's cool.
I would like nothing more than to see a total 35% hit on a new SUV
The nrst will not increase prices. This fact goes a long way to understand why the black market will be no worse than it is now.
Remember, prices won't change, Carry_Okie. The only change is that around 30 cents of federal tax that is currently being paid but is hidden from our view will become visible.
If anyone would like to join our Cyber-War (email campaign), just ckick on my name below and FReep-mail me your name, screen name and real email address.
We started this about 4 months ago to inform Congress, POTUS candidates and various economists the major advantages of the NRST...our numbers are now over 500!
I will forward pigdog your email address and he'll send you all the necessary information.
Can you spare 5 minutes a day, to help return America to what our founding fathers envisioned?
See post #87
See post #87
See post #87
Over 500! Wow...this nrst thing IS a winner! Keep up the good work CHIEF-
PLEASE! ANYONE WHO LIVES NEAR CANADA GET AHOLD OF THE NEAREST IDIOT WHO WANTS A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND DRAG HIM OVER THE BORDER TO SEE HOW IT OPERATES IN CANADA. THEY *HATE* IT OVER THERE!!!!!
A FLAT TAX (IF WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INCOME TAX) IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!!
OOPS! WHAT THEY HAVE IN CANADA IS A VAT, NOT WHAT HB 2525 IS. IN FACT, THE FLAT INCOME TAX APPARENTLY PROMOTED BY MR. K IS ACTUALLY A VAT! SPECIFICALLY, A SUBTRACTION METHOD VAT.
Please, Mr. K, find out about what you're commenting on before you make such gross misstatements.
HB 2525 is not a vat. There is no country that ever has tried to implement a tax system in accordance to HB 2525.
Indeed Canada has a VAT. Tell me Mr. K, doesn't Canada ALSO have an income tax? Do you know the what a VAT is?
Sorry to be so harsh, but the ignorance you show is the main obstacle of tax reform. I urge you to educate yourself, pronto.
OK CHIEF-you got it today-eddycate, eddycate, eddycate! I'm off to pay my taxes...
"A FLAT TAX (IF WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INCOME TAX) IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!!"
Forbes 17% 46.3% (minimum) Flat Income/Vat Tax Scam!
Excerpt:
He is wrong on all four counts and I'll prove it!
Principled is correct, no country has ever eliminated it's income tax and adopted a true NRST. No other country has a system of government like ours and no other country has led the world in so many fields as ours. There is no particular reason we should follow other countries' lead on tax matters. We should strive to have the best tax system, period. The NRST - BTW - makes taxation of personal and corporate income illegal.
I do not want to get into specifics about the 'definition' of different types of tax. What I was talking about was the GST ( ST stands for sales tax ) that Canadians pay.
Everything they buy gets whacked with this ST (get it? Sales Tax)
And they **HATE** it with a passion. Imagine everything you buy getting whacked with an additional 17%.
Whether you call Canada's national Sales Tax (rememeber ST) a VAT or whatever, I don't care. It is a SALES TAX and they despise it, as we would.
And notice I didn't even call you ignorant?
Imagine everything you buy getting whacked with an additional 17%.
Either you didn't read the article, or you don't believe it. If you didn't read it, please do so. It states that prices will not increase under HB 2525. So there will be no "additional amount whacked onto" prices! Of course they (Canadians)hate a pure and simple price increase! But the nrst HB 2525 will NOT increase prices. You have hit upon the very aspect of Canada's system that makes it a VAT...cascading taxes. But, HB 2525 eliminates all federal income related and payroll related cascading. That's why prices won't go up.
Again, if you didn't read the article, please do so. If, on the other hand, you read the article but you don't believe it's assertions, please provide your point of view as to which assertion you disagree with, and your reasoning; then maybe we can get something going....
BTW I intended to label your post as ignorant, not you. And "ignorant" in this context is not an insult, but an indicator of an apparent lack of knowledge in the subject matter.
So read the article, or tell me what about it you disagree with, OK?
You're so dammed reasonable it's digusting! Where's the invective? The virtriol? The venom? The viciousness? The-- drat, I'm out of 'V' words!!
One could almost believe you're presenting an honest case as honestly as you know how. Keep that up and people will start to believe it...
(Ifonlyifonlyifonly...)
Your example of theft of cars and boats still does not apply the the NRST. Such illegal activity is theft of existing products and will continue with existing products under the NRST. That is not an applicable example to the NRST in any way unless you are trying to make the point that there are criminal activities now and will be under the NRST. The criminals in this case are not evading just income taxes; they are evading purchasing things that they steal outright and re-sell. That will continue under any tax system. Your example is mis-applied.
You speak of "... the current corporate tax evasion in transfer pricing schema ..." and I wonder if you could be more specific as to just what you mean? If you mean that most (or any substantial percentage of) business are willing to indulge in criminal activities, I'd have to take issue with that. I think most are not involved in that sort of activity and I believe that most businesses will collect the sales tax correctly and without any particular difficulty.
With respect to sales under the Internet and subsequent distribution of that taxation, you'd better read the NRST bills. They require a business to be licensed and meet certain reporting requirements to the state administering agency. Business on the Internet (or otherwise) can be audited for compliance and there are certainly methods of "auditing around" businesses that are suspected of illegality. There are also penalties for those types of activities (which are intentional lawbreaking, BTW). Your entire presentation seems to assume that there is widespread lawbreaking which will increase with the NRST. I see no evidence of that (nor have you provided any).
Prices will decrease under the NRST and while the rate may be apparent, it is less than the rate of income tax plus payroll tax withholding presently and yet you make no claim of widespread illegality in those situations. Since the rate is higher in those income tax instances, and since income is easier to hide than consumption, it would stand to reason using your inferrence that illegal activity would decline (not increase) with the NRST since the rate is lower than the income/payroll rate presently.
The example you cite of cigarette smuggling to avoid the sales tax (your words) isn't applicable since those particular products have been singled out for grossly high taxation with more yet to come - much higher than the NRST taxes. That also is not an applicable example as far as I can see. Keep in mind, too, that those law-breakers were put out of business.
In fact, with the NRST, the economic studies show that the sales tax rate, to produce a given amount of revenue, will be able to be decreased as time goes on. As this happens it will lessen any incentive that might exist assuming your theory has credence.
I reject you characterization of illegal drug activities as somehow being applicable to the NRST. Such drug activities are illegal from top to bottom and immoral to boot. Nothing in that is comparable to the NRST and you are greatly over-reaching to try to make that comparison.
Most of the revenue under the NRST will be raised from everyday, normal sales transactions in the normal course of daily business and there will certainly not be some new class of "NRST criminal underworld" created to profit from tax evasion any more than there now exists tax evaders that profit from evaning the income/payroll taxes that I mentioned earlier (which are a higher rate than the NRST). Are you somehow trying to infer that police forces will suddenly become vulnerable to being bribed to look the other way when someone buys $50 worth of groceries at the corner market so that $11.50 of sales tax can be evaded?
The percentage on the SUV you mentioned WAS material to the discussion (which BTW we have going on despite your assertion to the contrary - I just haven't bought into most of your points, that's why you think it is not a "discussion"). The figure you cited showed two things: that you had a great lack of knowledge about the NRST and that you do not understand that a tax that has low rates and that is consistently applied will be much more readily complied with by taxpayers. The NRST rate, either 15% or 23% depending on the bill, is less than the tax burden of the taxpayer at present and it is also clear that the rate will be subject to being decreased as time goes on since there will be increased economic activity due to the NRST.
"I was not trying convince you of anything other than to ask you to convince me that it was worth the risk to make such a wholesale change and suggest the best likely mechanisms with which to avoid a debacle. " Now, now let's not pretend something that isn't true. You were certainly trying to swing me over to your view of implementing the NRST very, very slowly a bit at a time because of some great danger involved it implementing it by changing the law and starting the new tax system. I do not agree that that is a good idea at all, it fact I believe it to be the worst possible implementation mechanism since it would give opponents even greater opportunity to try to defeat it at every turn. The experience of the states with their sales taxes presently is certainly a sufficient trial run of many years. Extending that even further is quite unlikely to yield any meaningful experience. Under such a philosophy, each 0.0000001% rate change (up or down) would need to be "tested" to ascertain the effect.
That sort piecemeal implementation would never be successful, nor would it give it a realistic test in any event of only a few states were to implement "some" changes. That would mean even more sales tax chaos than we have at present with different states having different sales tax laws. It would not be a rational test of the entire system at all and for that very reason could not succeed. Yes, I said "cannot" - and I believe that to be correct. If you wish to have a trial, implement the entire law for, say, 5 years and then see how it has worked out ... but piecemeal or incremental - no. To do any sort of test as you mention (and without the property tax which is not included in the NRST), the external influences of other states having sales-tax advantaged positions would be a disaster and indicative of nothing at all. It's almost as though you are trying to envision a scenario where the NRST could not possibly succeed. It would not be a valid test at all of real world conditions.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
voilent, vicious, vindictive, ah hell...I need a dictionary!
Well let's hope Mr K checks out the bill and the plan. He will be pleasantly surprised, particularly if he is fearful of rising prices...he will be really happy when he recogizes a 25% rise in take-home pay (with no price increase!).
It's almost as though you are trying to envision a scenario where the NRST could not possibly succeed.
THis was precisely my take, pigdog.
However, even this point of view is unable to create a bad scenario without using faulty information. There just isn't anything about our current marxist scheme that is worth keeping. HB 2525 is the clear alternative; there is no better alternative, there is no better alternative.
Nice post too!
Hey GA6thDL, whaddaya think about HB 2525? We haven't heard from you on this!
BTW, ck your private email
You posted the following addressed to CliffC (me):
-------------------------------------------------------
Bold off???
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
38 Posted on 02/20/2000 14:20:30 PST by pigdog
-------------------------------------------------------
What does Bold off??? mean?
Principled (or anyone):
Can the poster of a msg edit it AFTER it has been posted?
If so, how is it done?
Also, can a poster delete his msg after it is posted?
Thanks
What does Bold off??? mean?
It means that you, or some poster prior to you, failed to close their html tag and that he was turning of the bold. Nothing to worry about.
Can the poster of a msg edit it AFTER it has been posted? If so, how is it done?
Also, can a poster delete his msg after it is posted?
No and no. Thats why we need to make real good use of the prreview button before we post.
Good to see ya here Cliff. I like your site a lot.
After you've previewed and hit the post button, it's there for all the world to see. (no take-backs) When people don't close out their tags with a < /bold >, or < /font size > (with out the spaces btw) it will continue into the next post.
Here's some html formatting hints for FR.
PLEASE! ANYONE WHO LIVES NEAR CANADA GET AHOLD OF THE NEAREST IDIOT WHO WANTS A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND DRAG HIM OVER THE BORDER TO SEE HOW IT OPERATES IN CANADA. THEY *HATE* IT OVER THERE!!!!!
A FLAT TAX (IF WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INCOME TAX) IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!!
I can understand that, since it's combined with the Canadian government's PC, anti-Christian politics and their other taxes. Over here, however, the sales tax will replace all other taxes, as I understand it, althought I'm not sure it would replace user fees (National Parks, etc.). Such a tax, when the necessity rebate is counted in, will give us great financial leverage over arrogant politicians, IMO.
How about: virulence, vituperation, violence, vafrous, vagient, vagarious, vampiric, venal, vesicant, vermiceous, vesicatory, vicissitudinary, volcanic, vomicene, vomiturition, vulgartity, vulturine ... or, maybe, vacuity? Heck, there's "v" words I haven't even said yet. Need more??
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Sorry to be so slow in responding. As Bigun said it was an unclosed tag that I thought was "< /b > (without the spaces), but it turned out to be a < /font size > tag unclosed instead. That's why mine "Bold < /b > off" did not work in reply #38 had no effect but CHIEF negotiator's "< /font size > < /font size >Back to normal?" did work. (He had two close tag entries kaws he kant kount).
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
"(He had two close tag entries kaws he kant kount)."
Try closin this one out: Tax preparers and income tax experts who routinely testify before Congress admit
that even they do not fully understand all the provisions and ramifications of the IRC.
Several years ago, Money Magazine gave 48 accountants nationwide a financial
profile of the magazine's typical reader and then asked them to prepare a
hypothetical tax return. Not only did each of them come up with a different answer,
but the computed tax liability for this one family ranged from $16,219 to $46,564.
Here's the real bottom line: the income tax code is a mess; the IRS is out of control;
and it's time to scrap them both and start with a clean sheet of paper.
So what's to close?
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I new eye axed the rong person...Let's see if anyone else can figger it out.
The current U.S. income tax system suffers from a multitude of defects that are well recognized by those who have to comply with the tax code each year. A major objective of the NST plan is to fix those deficiencies. For example, an NST should promote higher rates of economic growth by dramatically reducing the tax bias against work, savings, and investment. The marginal tax rate on consumed income that workers and investors face would be much lower, and the return on savings and investment would not be taxed until spent. Moreover, an NST would reduce economically inefficient distortions in the pattern of investments that are now dictated largely by tax shelters, deductions, and special-interest loopholes.
Any takers?
How about this?
I guess we are no longer discussing this bill.
Still ain't convinced.
---max
Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because of that fishing tackle thing that you posted with LINKS TO NOWHERE on the "737 billion reasons to abolish the income tax" thread. Maybe its because of the way you call advocates of a sensible idea "shills." Maybe its because of your snotty attitude?
Oh gee I'm sorry honey I didn't know you were so sensitive, Do you put out warnings about everyone that makes mistakes with links?... or has a "snotty attitude"?...Just because YOU think the scam is sensible, doesn't mean those of us that know the facts have to fall into line...Did I use your name in reference to shills or do you just identify yourself as one...If you don't think of yourself as a shill, why does it bother you?
The truth is I know more about, and am more honest about the facts of this bill than any of you "shills"... and the truth is, you all despise me for it...the truth is, I use the information YOU "shills" provide to make my point...the truth is you "shills" haven't been honest enough to admit that the real problem is not the messenger, but the facts in the message....The truth is, you don't have any idea what you're really selling...or for whom.
BTW, the "fishing tackle" thing is/was a reference to Chief's bitch about Hastert giving favors to a fishing tackle manufacturer, and my (correct) point was that the fraudtax wouldn't change that...fising tackle has an excise tax and HR2525 opens a NEW and LARGER Excise Tax Bureau ....The new EXPANDED Excise Tax Bureau won't be for just fishing tackle, gasoline and tires...Some people even claim income tax is really an excise tax....ponder that one for awhile.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Why, it's our D.L.F., back to entertain us.
Hey Looey, you have 10 seconds to answer. (Watch folks, He's gonna get it wrong.)
True or False:
23% = 23/100 = .23
Max,
Did you read my response to you on the previous thread (the link is under the initial article at the top)?
I'll repost it, if necessary...
Guess what, looey, you're wrong again. There is no NEW AND LARGER Excise Tax Bureau nor a NEW AND EXPANDED one as you so wrongfully claim. There is only an Excise Tax Bureau created to take over the existing excise taxes presently handled by the IRS. The IRS is being eliminated, remember???
And in fact, looey, we don't despise you because you are "... more honest about the facts of this bill ..." (your words - and that's a hoot, fer shure) than any of us. We despise you because you are an ignorant fool and stupid to boot which you have amply demonstrated in the past (and are doing so again now) and your only objective is to try to disrupt. Most reading these threads will quickly come to that realization.
Another thing they will quickly realize is that you never admit your own errors and never answer a question asked of you; to wit "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Some people even claim income tax is really an excise tax....ponder that one for awhile.
You mean like the Supreme Court maybe, that classified the income tax as an indirect tax in the catagory of an excise or dutie back in 1880, affirmed as such in 1911, in 1913, and again in 1920; And has held so ever since?
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586 Regarding 1865 tax on income.
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax[income tax] of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. "
"[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable."
Stanton v. Baltic(1916), 240 US 103,112,113:
"But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged ..."
Eisner v. Macomber(1920), 252 U.S. 189
"the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
- 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income."
"'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets', to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185"
But then again maybe you qualify for that direct capitation tax on slaves maybe?
To CHIEF (or any HR 2525 guru):
Please check my understanding of HR 2525 (and my math) and let me know if I got it right.
1. Shelf price of an item before & after HR 2525 enacted...
$100.00 Shelf Price before HR 2525 is enacted. (Amount the customer pays today)
$ 25.00 A 25% price drop. See Note(a)
$ 75.00 Shelf Price after
HR 2525 is enacted. (The NRST will be added to this price).
Note: (a) Dr. Dale Jorgenson (Harvard) and the CATO Institute Study indicates
that prices will drop between 20% and 30% after HR 2525 is enacted. The above
example uses a price drop in the mid-range of the Jorgenson/CATO projections,
i.e. a 25% price drop.
2. The HR 2525 tax rate of 23% is "inclusive" meaning...
$ 75.00 Shelf price after HR 2525 is enacted
$ 22.40 NRST, i.e. 23% of $ 97.40 (same as 1.2987 x $75.00)
$ 97.40 Customer pays this total after HR 2525 is enacted (it includes the NRST).
Note that the customer's out-of-pocket cost in this example is actually lower AFTER enactment
of HR 2525 than it was BEFORE enactment of HR 2525. ($100.00 - $97.40 = $2.60 lower).
AND...
a. No more withholding from one's paycheck for Income Tax and no more paycheck deductions for
Social Security (FICA Payroll tax).
b. Monthly (advance NRST Rebate) check-in-the-mail to you based on family size (not based
on Income). Covers NRST up to the Federal designated Poverty level, thus no one pays
the NRST on the 'necessities of life'.
c. No more filing of Income Taxes, or paying H&R Block (or record keeping).
d. No more IRS audits, fines, property seizures, etc.
e. No more death or inheritance taxes.
f. No more taxes on the Interest you earn in your Savings Account.
g. April 15th becomes just another beautiful Spring day!
To see ALL the benefits of the NRST, visit... http://www.geocities.com/~cmcofer/ben.html
The National Sales Tax: FAIRNESS & FREEDOM for all!
Onward & Upward!
Cliff Cofer
P.S.1 Have you joined the NRST
ALLIANCE yet? If not, hie on over to http://www.salestax.org/
and get on board. We needja!
P.S.2 "Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come!" --Victor Hugo
The National Sales tax is an idea whose time has come. SPREAD THE WORD!
P.S.3 Thanks for all the Happy Birthday wishes from you upbeat guys & gals on this super message board!
I don't know why you people keep talking about passe' stuff like freedom. The only candidate who will allow this bill into law is Keyes, and people tell me daily, HE CAN'T WIN! If you really want this, vote Keyes or buy more ammo, cause the others are just Marx and Marx lite, and will never extract their fingers from your wallet, because it is, after all,.....for the children....uh, with compasion, of course. I can't believe you all don't want to "contribute" to the village...uh, the children....uh, compasion.. I get mixed up listening to the debates.
You people that want to have control over the government's money, scare me.
Do you guys think you could get this passed before I make my 2nd million.(I missed the first one).If I made a million dollars, it would kill me to have to give up almost $400,000 in one year.
P.S. Anyone wanting to make some easy money next 2 weeks, buy 3Com. They are spinning off the Palm Pilot as an IPO Mar. 2nd and it will go to the moon,IMHO. 3Com will retain 93% of Palm for 6 months, and then alegedly distribute 1.5 shares of Palm for 1 share of COMS to shareholders on record on x dividend day. If Palm goes to $100(which is possible), Coms will be $150-$180. Coms is $70 right now. Do your own due dilligence, this is my opinion. Mar. 2nd will be the biggest day of my life.(Other than my re-birth, my wife and child, of course) I will either be able to retire in 2 years, or work till I drop. I don't want to give the gubmint 40%.
"The truth is I know more about, and am more honest about the facts of this bill than any of you "shills"... and the truth is, you all despise me for it...the truth is, I use the information YOU "shills" provide to make my point...the truth is you "shills" haven't been honest enough to admit that the real problem is not the messenger, but the facts in the message....The truth is, you don't have any idea what you're really selling...or for whom."
When Lurkey is confronted, and called on the carpet for his stupidity, he runs away and hides like he did on the thread: If McCain says, "Tax Breaks For The Rich" one more time... Post #106
"Spending all of their TOTAL income at a .2987% sales tax rate"
.2987 x $25,088 = $ 7,494.00
You twit!
Using your numbers. A person has a total income, including rebate of $25,088 which means that is all he has to spend including tax....RIGHT?
This time I'll type real slow so you can catch it this time:
$25,088 X .23 = $5,770.24...which happens to be 23% of his income, RIGHT?
Since taxes have to be paid out of his income, then we must subtract the taxes he has paid on that income...RIGHT?
$25,088 - $5,770.24 = $19,317.76 untaxed income...RIGHT?
$19,317.76 X .2987 = $5,770.21
Notice how the numbers are the same?
Using your logic the man would pay taxes ON TOP OF HIS TOTAL INCOME!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
$25,088 X .2987 = $7,493.79 So you're saying that instead of having a total income of $25,088, it's really $32,581.79?
Where will that extra 7 and 1/2 Gs come from Louie... Will he rob a bank?
You're too much!
You're right on target as always...you ole phart! LOL!!!
Happy Birthday!
Since I've been working I've not had the opportunity to respond.
Imagine no income taxes to pay.
Since this bill does not eliminate the legal authority for the income tax, this is supposition at best. Congress can re-enact the income tax anytime they see fit to re-write the legislation to re-institute that portion of the tax code which this bill eliminates.
Imagine no federal deductions from your paycheck.
This statement is misleading, although this bill would repeal the current implementation of the income tax, it does not repeal taxes for Social Security or Medicare. These are federal deductions from your paycheck. They will still be deducted.
Imagine no individual tax filing.
More misdirection, purchasers will be liable and required to "file" in the circumstance that they purchase goods outside the country. As well, if "individuals" will not have any kind of interaction with the tax authorities, why would the tax authorities need the authority to garnish wages?.
As well, if two parties "trade" services (barter) instead of opting for a monetary transaction, both parties will still be liable for collection of the tax.
Imagine no IRS.
Well, this bill does eliminate the IRS. However it also replaces the IRS with at least two new bureaucracies whose purpose will be to "smooth transition" and to ensure collection and compliance. These agencies will still have the same authority to:
As well, this piece of legislation already has pre-ordained conferences set up for these new agencies to meet and discuss the new tax system.
Imagine April 15th as just another day of spring.
Well, April 15th will be just one of the tax collection dates. The 15th of every month will become April 15 as this is the date that all registered entities will be required to report and remit tax collections.
Let me see everyone repeat this:
HR2525 does not repeal the income tax as this would require an amendment to the Constitution. This bill does not reduce the size, scope or authority of the federal government.
If any of these statements are incorrect, please let me know.
---max
Ay caramba pigdog! You're clearly "v" literate! How about this:
Vision: no income tax
Vain: today's pols thinking they know how we should spend our $
Valiant: those who fight to restrict government excess by abolishing the income tax
Valid: all of the arguments against the income tax and in favor of HB 2525
vaporous: vacuous arguments in favor of keeping an income tax
variegate: one pro-income tax poster's screen name
vatic: the wisdom of HB 2525
venal: lobbyists and politicians under an income tax
vermination: the "logic" of looey
vermicide: logic to muttley
HA what fun!
SCRAP THE CODE!
Sure they can if they no longer want to be congress-critters. That's what's called political suicide.
Not under HR2525, the FairTax Act. SS and MC will be funded from revenue raised by the NRST.
No filing of income...no garnishment of wages. You need to read the bill.
I'll paint your garage door if you mow my grass. Yeah, I'm sure the state taxing authority will come down with a heavy hand to eliminate these tax cheaters! Yes, we should stay with the abusive income tax and Gestapo IRS, so this kinda crap won't happen?
We have had 45 states collect a sales tax for 60 years...please provide ONE (1) article that discusses the abusive nature that the state sales tax authority have come down hard on businesses when it wasn't necessary.
They "remit" what they "collect", yet will now be paid for doing so. SO WHAT? Should it be written into the law that the taxes paid can be sent "at your convience"?
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Would you be FOR the NRST if it tried to take on the politicizing task of eliminating SS, MC, welfare, the school lunch program, the National Endowment for the Arts and bald-headed drunk drivers that like to gamble on the horses?
HR2525 does not repeal the income tax as this would require an amendment to the Constitution. This bill does not reduce the size, scope or authority of the federal government.
The rest have been pretty much taken care of, but I want to specifically address this one:
The 16th amendment gives Congress the POWER to tax income. The actual enactment, establishment, and creation of the income tax is through legislative processes. A Constitutional amendment would prohibit further income taxes, but HR2525 specifically repeals and amends the portions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with income tax.
Luv it when you talk "dirty v's". Sometimes I just view the virtual verisimilitudinous verdantly and verbosely/vituperatively vitiated by viewers with vagility to voice their vocation - such as looey. Know whut I mean, Verne?
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Yep, you're right as can be, but try explaing that to lewislynn (formerly known as lousbolts, formerly known as lurkeylou and originally known as lewislynn).
Instead of thinking of it as a tax-exclusive amount (0.2987), you can also divide by (1 - 0.23 or 0.77). The result is the same amount of money but this way you're using the tax-inclusive percentage which is comparable on the same basis to the income tax rate (which is tax-inclusive also). More nearly apples to apples than using one as t/i and the other as t/e - the money involved is the same. (Try explaining that to looey, too).
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Each of your statements in this post are incorrect and have been refuted by other posters. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss the points further, post away.
I've refrained from answering you so as not to "pile on", but if you have other concerns perhaps I can answer some of them (along with other posters, no doubt).
While mulling over your response, why don't you think of a way to tell us "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
New IRS Developments...
I'll be brief because I've got to hit the road to Miami but will check in later.
If you disagree with any of the statements I've made then I would have to assume that you have not read the entirety of this bill. Each of the items that I've stated are direct from the bill itself.
As for piling on not a problem. One should not walk into a den of snakes and not expect to be bit.
Catch ya later.
---max
I'll respond to your final question and hit the rest of your point later (I've got to hit the road).
Would you be FOR the NRST if it tried to take on the politicizing task of eliminating SS, MC, welfare, the school lunch program, the National Endowment for the Arts and bald-headed drunk drivers that like to gamble on the horses?
The only thing that this bill accomplishes from what I can discern from it is to impose a NRST. The portion which eliminates the IRS is smokescreen. The legislation creates more bureaucracy than it eliminates, if you choose to minimize this, then it is you who is not dealing with reality. We are talking about the federal government where programs and offices never die. Would I support a NRST given the proper parameters?, the answer is maybe. I will think about the parameters while driving.
---max
Hi NRST'ers:
Here's a copy of the letter I sent to the Des Moines Register a couple days ago. They phoned a few
minutes ago to tell me that it will appear in the newspaper within the next few days.
I sent a similar LETTER TO THE EDITOR to the Washington Post (D.C.). Broder is a regular writer
for the Post and his column is published regularly in the Des Moines Register.
Hopefully, Mr. Broder will re-visit the subject of Tax Reform in a future column and -- this time -- say
something factual about the National Retail Sales Tax... to make up for the slurring remark (he called
the NRST "preposterous") that he made in his column of Feb 13th.
Cliff Cofer - West Des Moines, Iowa
http://www.geocities.com/~cmcofer/ben.html <- Benefits of the NRST!
.......................................................
"I'm voting for the candidate who
backs the National Sales Tax!"
.......................................................
=======================================
To: The Des Moines Register February 19, 2000
Under date of Feb 13, 2000, David Broder wrote in his column, "Why Tax Talk Falls Flat" the following:
(Quote)
Alan Keyes wants to repeal the income tax and go back to financing the government with tariffs and
excises--a notion so preposterous none of his rivals ever has bothered to say a word about it.
(Unquote)
Though he's a Washington Post columnist, I regularly read
Mr. Broder's column in the Register and
have always rated him highly as a journalist.
However, I find it puzzling why he would label Keyes' Tax Reform plan as "preposterous"... without
citing any reason for calling it such.
I've looked at the plan that Keyes favors: replace Income Tax and IRS with a National Retail Sales
Tax (NRST) and I find it quite sensible. It's in Congress as HR 2525 The FairTax Act.
C'mon, Mr. Broder... you can do better. Tell us *why* you think the NRST is "preposterous!"
Sincerely,
Cliff Cofer
West Des Moines, Iowa
You surely know that David Broder is a bit time liberal, don't you? Give him hell.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Way to go Cliff, You da Man!!! Wonder why they're not using mine? Hmmm......LOL!
You said, “Alan Keyes wants to repeal the income tax and go back to financing the government through tariffs and excises — a notion so preposterous none of his rivals ever have bothered to say a word about it.”
Duh!? Why do you think, Mr. Broder, that not one presidential candidate in any of the debates has asked Dr. Keyes one single question about his National Retail Sales Tax plan ? Could it be they felt the country was not ready for the answer...or could it be because they know he’s right?
Since you obviously seem unaware, there happens to be two bills before Congress right now that will totally abolish the abusive, intrusive, incomprehensible income tax code, the IRS and calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment. HR2001 & HR2525.. Please do some research Mr. Broder.
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, are people like you who do not educate themselves before they write something they know nothing about!
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, are Presidential candidates that DEMAND American citizens continue to report their income information to the Gestapo IRS - face penalties, interest, searches. seizures, audits, garnishment of wages and even PRISON....when there is a better way to fund the government with a NRST.
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder is that The second plank in Karl Marx Communist Manifesto calls for:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (look it up!)
Tell me Mr. Broder, which Presidential candidates prefer a “progressive-graduated income tax”? Which ONE does not?
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, is that Congress and their thousands of lobbyists buddies, whose only reason for existence is to garner favor for their clients through the tax code, will do everything in their power to pit one group against another. Over 6,000 changes just since 1986 - Is it less abusive, less intrusive, or easier to understand?
If you are truly an “investigative reporter”, you will look up these facts and report on them., If you’re Pro-IRS, please just say so.
Way to go Cliff, You da Man!!! Wonder why they're not using mine? Hmmm......LOL!
You said, “Alan Keyes wants to repeal the income tax and go back to financing the government through tariffs and excises — a notion so preposterous none of his rivals ever have bothered to say a word about it.”
Duh!? Why do you think, Mr. Broder, that not one presidential candidate in any of the debates has asked Dr. Keyes one single question about his National Retail Sales Tax plan ? Could it be they felt the country was not ready for the answer...or could it be because they know he’s right?
Since you obviously seem unaware, there happens to be two bills before Congress right now that will totally abolish the abusive, intrusive, incomprehensible income tax code, the IRS and calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment. HR2001 & HR2525.. Please do some research Mr. Broder.
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, are people like you who do not educate themselves before they write something they know nothing about!
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, are Presidential candidates that DEMAND American citizens continue to report their income information to the Gestapo IRS - face penalties, interest, searches. seizures, audits, garnishment of wages and even PRISON....when there is a better way to fund the government with a NRST.
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder is that The second plank in Karl Marx Communist Manifesto calls for:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (look it up!)
Tell me Mr. Broder, which Presidential candidates prefer a “progressive-graduated income tax”? Which ONE does not?
What is “Preposterous” Mr. Broder, is that Congress and their thousands of lobbyists buddies, whose only reason for existence is to garner favor for their clients through the tax code, will do everything in their power to pit one group against another. Over 6,000 changes just since 1986 - Is it less abusive, less intrusive, or easier to understand?
If you are truly an “investigative reporter”, you will look up these facts and report on them., If you’re Pro-IRS, please just say so.
Just to get this discussion going on a reasonable path, I'll start off with this SIMPLE question - What ONE commodity increases with value as government builds infrastructure, provides national defense, etc.? Believe me, this will take us on a journey to discover the TRUE best method of taxation.
Okay, Techie, I'll bite...
Max, we've been over and over posts like yours that take portions of the bill and intersperse them with editorial comments. Pigdog has read the entire bill, indeed he knows the bill quite well.
Your MO is the same as lewislynn's: first, provide bill language juxtasposed with personal comment; then claim that your post is "directly from the bill".
Well that's infantile.
Sheesh.
NIcely done, CliffC. Keep after them!
Your MO is the same as lewislynn's: first, provide bill language juxtasposed with personal comment; then claim that your post is "directly from the bill".
Well that's infantile.
You couldn't be more wrong, what I have correctly done, is use the EXACT wording from the bill and give you my analysis...and NOT ONE OF YOU CAN PROVE ME WRONG.... OR A LIAR for that matter.
`(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration.-----------------------------The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income)----------------------------
`(f) ASSISTANCE- The Secretary shall provide such technical assistance as the Social Security Administration shall require to determine the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate.
The wording above is copy and paste from the bill...
My CORRECT analysis is that the SS bureaucrats and "the Secretary" will *determine* the (ultimate) sales tax rate, and they will be able to raise the rate with out a vote from Congress and they'll do that every year..
Now, prove me wrong or a liar with your own analysis.
Based on sect. 904 of the bill alone, your dream or lies about the rate going down after a period of time is dishonest....the only way the rates can go down is if income goes down....the entire basis of the sales tax is income....not sales activity, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest at best.
You have 1 blue ball and 9 red balls. What percentage of your balls are blue?
A) 10%
B) .10%
C) 11.11% (using exclusive rates)
D) None of the above
For the casual reader, I posed this question to Lewis some time ago in response to some grevious errors he was making. He refused to answer it, thereby waiving his right to legitimately participate in a discussion of tax rates.
You need to stop making a fool of yourself, weather you have blue balls or a red head has no bearing on the discussion of taxes.
My CORRECT analysis is that the SS bureaucrats and "the Secretary" will *determine* the (ultimate) sales tax rate, and they will be able to raise the rate with out a vote from Congress...
You're just silly. I make an assertion, and to refute it, you do exactly what I asserted. It is clear that it is YOUR analysis, not the bill. Nowhere in the bill does it say what YOUR analysis posits. You're not worth it.
Now, prove me wrong or a liar
This has been done repeatedly, private emails have been flying to threads illustrating such.
Your further assertions that tie the RETAIL SALES tax rate to income are similarly folly. Income is not related. Remember, this is a RETAIL SALES tax, not an income tax. Your assertions ot the contrary are hilarious.
Telling that you only attack an alternative to tax reform and NEVER, EVER have a better alternative. For the 27th time, I ask, what is your alternative for tax reform? Or do you prefer any reform at all?
Of course, this 27th time, just like the previous 26 times I asked, you will not respond directly to this question. Why not answer? Are you afraid to be identified as a marxist, an income tax lover, a social engineer? Your posts are pathetic.
You can't answer Condorman's post, lewislynn? Why do you think that if everyone recognizes your lack of education that we will take your posts less seriously? Nobody takes your posts seriously, lewislynn. We all know you're a proven liar, Clinton-like. Your posts are lies. They have been proven to be such. Further, your posts show a purposeful attempt to misinform/lie to this forum. This is illustrated by posts on different threads regarding the same topic: you post a lie in one place, then when it's found out, you post the same lie elsewhere. It's demonstrable. Your posts are lies.
Now go back to pleasuring Clinton.
You couldn't be more wrong, what I have correctly done, is use the EXACT wording from the bill and give you my analysis...and NOT ONE OF YOU CAN PROVE ME WRONG.... OR A LIAR for that matter.
My CORRECT analysis is that the SS bureaucrats and "the Secretary" will *determine* the (ultimate) sales tax rate, and they will be able to raise the rate with out a vote from Congress and they'll do that every year..
Now, prove me wrong or a liar with your own analysis.
Based on sect. 904 of the bill alone, your dream or lies about the rate going down after a period of time is dishonest....the only way the rates can go down is if income goes down....the entire basis of the sales tax is income....not sales activity, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest at best.
Once more, Lewis, you have posted the refutation to your own misinformed opinion -- the text of the bill itself:
`(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income)
The words "shall be" have a specific meaning in legal language -- they impose a specific requirement. In this case, we see here that the amount of revenue to be collected for Social Security must be exactly that which would have been received under the old system (12.4% of the Social Security wage base). The amount must be identically equal to the retail sales tax base times the portion of the rate of the NRST that comes from the Social Security tax.
amount = base x rate
Since the amount is specified by the law and the sales tax base is a function of the economy, this leaves only one unknown -- the rate. Therefore, the rate must be determined as:
rate = amount / base
The rate will increase if the wage base increases (since amount = (wage x 0.12)) and will decrease if the retail sales tax base increases. (And of course, the opposite effects will occur for any corresponding decreases.)
The most important thing, however, is that the rate cannot be arbitrarily set -- it is a function of the SS wage base and the projected amount of retail sales. (Note that the calculation of the Medicare tax rate is exactly the same.)
You're really asking for truoble (and after I've been so nice to you, too). I refrained from letting you have it a thread or so ago when you were posting your idiotic and incorrect arithmetic. If you want it torn apart, post it again.
OK, here it is:
Assuming a family of four, (spending 100% of their earnings) with 2 children under 17, and taking a standard deduction. Estimated income tax according to H&R Block on line.
Gross income: $ 62,400
Total income tax due: $5,779.50
Total SS/Medicare withheld (.0765%) $4773.60
Total tax paid/due: $10,553.10
Percentage of gross income paid out in taxes:16.9% (.169%)
Gross income: $31,200
Total income tax due:$950
Total SS/Medicare withheld (.0765%) $2386.80
Total tax paid/due: $3336.80
Percentage of gross income paid out in taxes: 10.7% (.107%)
Same assumptions with the fairtax:
Gross earnings:$62,400
Family consumption "allowance" for family of four: $ 5088.00
Gross income: $ 67,488
Income tax due : 00000
SS/medicare witholding:00000
Total sales tax paid: $ 20,111.00.... (.23% tax inclusive = .2987%....)
Total sales tax paid ($20,111 - $5088) $15,023.00
Percentage of gross earnings paid out in taxes: 22.2% (.222%)....31% higher rate than the income tax.
Gross earnings: $31,200
Family consumption" allowance" for a family of four:$ 5088.00
Gross income: $36,288.00
Income tax due: 00000
SS/Medicare witholding: 00000
Total sales tax paid: $ 10,839.00....(.23% tax inclusive = .2987%....)
Total sales tax paid ($10,839- $5088)$ 5,751.00
Percentage of gross earnings paid out in taxes:.15.8% (.158%)....32% higher rate than the income tax.
Because the "allowance" is paid in advance it is actually income and becomes taxable when spent.....
If the "allowance" was your only source of income you would be taxed 29.87% (.2987%) every time you made a purchase or used a service.....SOOOOO your $ 5,088.00 family of four "rebate" is really an allowance that will only leave you with $3,568.00 to spend after taxes....therefore your 23% of the "poverty rate" is really only 16%( another fraud uncovered)
The only way your allowance could be a "rebate" to offset taxes paid is if the allowance was in no way taxable....and under a sales tax 100% of your TOTAL income (including the allowance) is subject to tax.
When you correctly add the allowance to your earnings for gross income... the tax rate on your gross income (spent) is the sales tax rate of .2987%
Per H&R Block: A husband and wife , using standard deductions, with 2 children under 17, earning : The same family will pay:$15,023.00 in sales taxes or 22.2% (.222%) of their gross income in federal SALES taxes .
$ 62,400.00... will pay :
$10,553.00 or 16.9% (.169%) of their gross income in total federal taxes
A husband and wife , using standard deductions, with 2 children under 17, earning : The same family will pay:$ 5,751.00 or 15.8% (.158%) of their gross income in federal SALES tax.
$31,200...will pay:$3,336.80 or 10.7% (.107%) of their gross income in federal taxes.
The bottom line is you will pay MORE taxes with a sales tax.
If you think you can avoid the sales tax, here is the analysis of DR.Mastro???? the person the shills love to quote.
" the lifetime application of a sales tax is much less regressive than it would appear to be when examining a cross-section of taxpayers in any given year. [40] Since all income is earned for the purpose of eventual consumption, under a national sales tax, the taxpayer can defer taxation by saving his income. But he cannot forever avoid the tax."
Always has been to me a superior idea over the flat tax.
Either way, the actual numbers represented by the percentages are identical.
The 23% (not .23%) NRST is calculated on tax inclusive rates, just like the income tax, just for comparison purposes.
If they're the same, why do you go on about denying the .2987% rate...YOUR CLAIM is we are both correct...so what's your problem???
Lewis, you've once again not gotten the grasp of tax-inclusive vs. tax-exclusive. You need to use the 23% rate, not 29.87%, to calculate the tax paid.
For the family earning $67,400:
For the family earning $31,200:
Where the $5,088 figure came from is the FCA for a family of four whose income is at poverty level, which would be a yearly income of $22,120.
22,120 X .23 = $5087.60, rounded to $5,088...but I'll use your figures:
$5,088 X .23 = $1,170.24
$5,088 - $1,170.24 = $3,917.76 NOT $3,568
$3917.76 X .2987 = $1,170.23
Are you really this dense?
Yeah, he really is!!! Enjoys lying, too!!!
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Either way, the actual numbers represented by the percentages are identical.
The 23% (not .23%) NRST is calculated on tax inclusive rates, just like the income tax, just for comparison purposes.
My Dear Little Friend, the problem is that you are applying the tax exclusive percentage (29.87%) in a tax inclusive (23%) analysis. I never denied that 29.87% was incorrect, merely that you were incorrectly applying it. To determine the amount of tax due, calculate 29.87% of the original item price, or calculate 23% of the total due at the register.
In other words:
Since the hypothetical family in YOUR EXAMPLE spends their entire income, that number must therefore be the total purchase price. So, as Chief Negotiator was so kind to demonstrate, we must use 23% (tax-inclusive NRST rate) in order to compare it to the income tax, which are also calculated on tax inclusive rates. (Of course, our DLF was never known to be a stickler for accuracy.)
Oh, and I'm still waiting for answers to posts #79 and #116. (I told you people he would refuse (or be unable) to answer them.)
Absolutely and without question. There are links to the bill scattered throughout these thread, but just for sh!ts and giggles, here it is again.
Click on the link; if your congressman isn't on the sponsor list, call him up and demand to know why!
Your "analysis" is riddled with errors....no wait, you've posted THE EXACT SAME post on other threads, and you were shown your errors. So I guess you posted THE EXACT SAME thing here why?
Cuz your posts are all lies designed to keep lurkers from finding out about any alternative to tax reform. This is one place you could learn something, here's another place.
Now I'll ask again, for te 28th time:THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BETTER THAN THE NRST, but you attack it (on falsehoods, no less). What is your alternative to tax reform? THis is the 28th time I've asked (no kidding, check your replies). I just wonder why you don't answer.....as we all wonder...
Dang it, Condorman, this thread's about as long as the first one!
Bump!
Whoa up, there, Condorman!!! Looey has this "little problem" with comprehension of which you may not be aware (even though it's tough to miss), so let me try to 'splain it to him.
Now, looey, I'll type real slow so follow along. Condorman was definitely NOT saying you were both correct; he was saying that you were wrong! In the statement "... the actual numbers represented by the percentages are identical ..." those "actual numbers" were dollars of tax meaning that whether correctly calculated by tax-inclusive methods or by tax-exclusive methods the tax dollars remain the same. The statement does NOT say the percentages are identical. Your calculations were incorrect as several posters have already told you since you were using a tax-exclusive calculation rate when it should have been tax-inclusive with the income number you applied it to. In other words, your example assumes that earnings + rebate is spent.
As CHIEF negotiator pointed out in an earlier post this would mean that the total of earnings + rebate would include the 23% tax inclusive amount. If earnings + rebate were, say, $36,288 then that amount included the tax paid; to be exact, 23% of that amount since the assumption that ALL was spent of taxable items. That would mean the amount of NRST tax paid was $8,346 rather than $10,839. When the $5,088 is subtracted, we have the family paying $3,261 rather than the $5,751 you calculated. This is a total NRST tax burden of 8.9% on the total income of $36,288 rather than your figure of 15.8%. As we shall see later in this post, even that is highly misleading since the NRST family could spend the entire earned income ($31,200) which -due to withholding - the income tax family could never do.
But this raises some of the several other flaws in your calculation. Even assuming (which I am loathe to do because of your track record) that you operated the Java-driven H&R Block Estimator correctly, all that it calculates is the "income tax" that shows on your 1040 (and you have added in 1/2 of your payroll taxes). But the 1040 figure is not the entire tax burden this family pays by any means. You are attempting to equate the entire NRST tax burden with a figure that is only a partial tax burden in the case of the income tax. You have not taken into account the hidden taxes that are from 20 to 40% of the price of everything we buy presently, but you have also failed to include the other 1/2 of the payroll tax - an additional 7.65%. Over and above that the comparison you attempt is also skewed in favor of the income tax figures you present since the income tax family can never enjoy the purchasing power of the NRST family due to the NRST rebate and the fact that the income tax family has the tax confiscated "up front".
In other words, what you have done is boosted the standard of living and purchasing power of the NRST family by $5,088 (the rebate) and you have made no corresponding upward adjustment in spendable income for the income tax family. Any such adjustment for the income tax family would have to be considerably more that the $5,088 since to net that for spending, the income tax family would have to pay income taxes on the income at their marginal rate. For example, if the marginal (not efective) rate were 31%, they would need to earn another $7,374 (which would also boost their tax burden accordingly).
The upshot of all this is that your example is meaningless, not accurate, and in fact is unrealistically biased in favor of the income tax and against the NRST. You have compared a "richer" NRST family that has greater purchasing power and spendable income against a poorer income tax family with less purchasing power and spendable income and have tried to somehow convince us by your example that these two families are being compared on an equal basis. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH and for the reasons I have cited in this reply.
Your example not only sucks, it doesn't even tell us (at least not directly) "What's so fair about a tax on income?"
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
I haven't met anyone can tell me what's fair about a tax on income. ONe of the things I like about H.R. 2525(there are lots of reasons)is that it applies to anyone who buys something in USA, including tourists and illegal imigrants. This way more people pay into the system, thus reducing the overall burden .
Ah, max61, but HR2525 DOES eliminate the legal authority for the income tax. The legal authority for the income tax is the enabling legislation (i.e, the tax code; the statutes themselves and their correspondoing Revenue Procedures). Clearly the income tax provisions of the tax code are eliminated by the bill. In addition the IRS is defunded and it is required that the income tax records be destroyed and additionally the bill calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment.
With the NRST as the tax law of the land there will be no reason at all to NOT repeal the 16th since it will serve no function whatsoever. There will be, at best, few congressmen who would stand up on the floor of House or Senate and harrangue for a bill to re-implement an income tax when the repeal of that very thing is out to the states for ratification. They would be hooted down by their colleagues and deservedly so. The NRST will quickly be seen by most taxpayers as a fair tax system and will be much preferred to the income tax system.
Payroll tax withholding from paychecks is eliminated in opposition to your claim that it is not. It is obvious you have not read the bill (or if so, not carefully enough) despite your claim to the contrary.
Taxpayers no longer have to file reports on nor pay income taxes. That is what the "individual tax filing" means. Items purchased outside the country will be declarable much as at present and that is certainly not filing reports on nor paying income tax. Any taxing authority has to have the legal power to enforce the tax law. In this case, garnishment is needed since some businesses are basically individuals. Garnishment, property seizue, and liens are both appropriate, but notice that there are exclusions so that a person functioning as a business cannot have everything taken from him and is protected in monthly income (among other things) to the extent of 1.5 times the poverty rate. This is actually much better than under the income tax, and in addition with the NRST the burden of proof is upon the taxing authority (the state), not the taxpayer as at present. Moreover this sort of action does not apply to most people but only those operating as a business selling new things to end-consumers and collecting the sales tax from those consumers (for which the business is paid). Most people will have no involvement - ZERO - with the taxing authority.
In barter transactions, both parties are NOT responsible for the tax. The bill clearly states that the party responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall do so as though it were paid in money.
It's hard to see what "two new bureaucracies" you are referring, since the Treasury Department (the overseer of the state tax authorities) already exists and has for some time as have the 45 state sales tax authorities. Do you have some specific objection to Treasury meeting with the state sales tax authorities? If so, on what grounds. This is something the IRS does quite frequently right now so you must object to that too, I presume.
Equating the 15th of each month with the present April 15th is hardly reasonable since the reporting requirements are dramatically simpler for the NRST. A business must basically report his gross sales (including sales tax) plus the tax collected. This is hardly more that a summary of a cash register receipts or cash receipts journal for most businesses. It is not even remotely as complex or extensive as the reporting requirements on, for example, payroll taxes. Pretending it is some vastly more complex and invasive thing just doesn't amount to reasonableness.
The bill if fact, though, DOES repeal the income tax and eliminates the agency administering it and no amendment to the constitution is required to do so. In fact, passing the NRST is the best protection we have against the government laying both an income tax AND a sales tax upon us at the same time as some other countries have. Other than passing the NRST to do away with the income tax, there is nothing that prevents the government from having both right now. The bill actually will reduce the size, scope, and authority of the federal government to some degreed even though it is revenue-neutral in the first year. It eliminates funding for 115,000 IRS employees and their equipment and appurtenances. It also makes it far more difficult for congress to play the type of special interest games they have with the income tax code by hiding and manipulating tax burdens (or de-burdening) for special interests - that is a lessening of their power, make no mistake. More than that it begins to put the control of government revenues back into the hands of citizens by getting it out of Washington and back to the states, thereby reducing the federal power that much further.
All in all I take exception to each of your points for the reasons I have stated. If you have indeed read the bill, you would profit from reading it again with more thoughtfulness.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Bitch, bitch, bitch!
Here's your stinking NEW THREAD!!
;^)
Though the 23% is too high.
The government will have to make do with less.
Call it, necessitated downsizing.
The 23% NRST rate is less than the rate you pay now if you're a wage earner. If so, you pay 15.3% payroll taxes as well as income tax withholding which starts at 15%.
Even that, though, doesn't begin to describe all the tax burden you have. Embedded in everything you buy is from 20 to 40% of the cost of that item as an added, non-productive cost ... a hidden tax. Over and above that, there is even more. The interest-free loan you give the government each year in the form of your income tax withholding has a cost to you though many do not realize it since it, too, is not seen. The increased interest rates above those required for tax-exempt interest rates are there because of the income tax - to ensure a return to the creditor that is adequate for an after-tax return. These higher interest rates raise the prices of everything from cars and homes to refrigerators to clothes to donughts since people and most businesses must borrow (and not at tax-free rates).
So, you see, the 23% NRST rate is actually quite a low rate when you stop to realize that with the NRST there are none of these hidden taxes and costs. Sure, government should spend less and getting the NRST rolling along is a good first step in getting the politicians OUT of control of our country.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Hi Chief:
Way to go Cliff, You da Man!!! Wonder why they're not using mine? Hmmm......LOL!
-------------------------------------------------------
Response to David Broader’s article 2-13-2000 entitled, “Why Tax Talk Falls Flat”:
Broder wrote, “Alan Keyes wants to repeal the income tax and go back to financing the government through tariffs and excises — a notion so preposterous none of his rivals ever have bothered to say a word about it.”
--------------------------------------------------------
I told Broder in my Letter that I reviewed the Keyes plan and found it quite sensible and asked what he felt was preposterous about it?.
The Des Moines Register printed (2/27) my Letter To The Editor about Broder's column. I sent a copy to Keyes, also.
Cliff
(PLEASE! ANYONE WHO LIVES NEAR CANADA GET AHOLD OF THE NEAREST IDIOT WHO WANTS A NATIONAL SALES TAX AND DRAG HIM OVER THE BORDER TO SEE HOW IT OPERATES IN CANADA. THEY *HATE* IT OVER THERE!!!!! A FLAT TAX (IF WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INCOME TAX) IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!!)
...I can understand that, since it's combined with the Canadian government's PC, anti-Christian politics and their other taxes. Over here, however, the sales tax will replace all other taxes, as I understand it,
and I have some swamp land to sell you...look, just picture EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE STORE tacking on an extra buck or 2 or 10 or 20 or 50 to EVERYTHING you buy....It is horrifying and they HATE HATE *HATE* it over there
(*sigh* it is so sad to see the word 'hate' so much every day...*love**love**love**love*just to balance...)
OK, let's argue on principle: do you like the idea of the government having a claim to 100% of your money? Realistically, they'll never get all of it because we have guns and the ballot box, but the claim still stands. I think that the NRST should be debated in Congress, if not passed post haste.
No, I do not want the govt to claim ANY of my money, I want the 16th ammendmend repealed!!!!! (allowing INCOME tax for the first time- for those who don't know)
But if there IS going to be a tax (and there will be) The NRST is the WORST way to go...it is a hateful vile thing-a nickel here and a dime there all day long wherever you go, ask anyone who has to live with one (in Canada). That is the ONLY point I am trying to make- they absolutely HATE IT UP THERE!!!!!
At least with a flat tax (no loopholes, getting the govt and LOBBYists out of legislating their views with tax code) we will accomplish a lot with one fell swoop. And it will be easy for the simple-minded to understand. Then we work on lowering that til it goes away.
There has never been a government that has not taxed in all of human history - and I wouldn't look for one to start now.
You seem greatly uninformed on both the NRST and Canadian taxes. The sales tax in Canada - the Goods and Services Tax (GST ... aka Grab and Squeeze Tax) is actually a Value Added Tax rather a pure consumption tax as is the NRST. In addition, the GST is laid upon a rather high income tax to boot. It's hard to understand why Canadians as a whole put up with it - except perhaps for the fact that its easy to come down and work in the US of A and get better medical care to boot.
The NRST is defined in either of the two bills to NOT be a VAT (which the flat-VAT income tax actually is), and it will put more money into the pocket of the wage-earner to the tune of over 30% in addition to bringing price levels down.
Little Willie is "The Worst President In American History".
Bump to bookmark. Invaluable resource. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |